There’s not much I can add to Mark Levin’s explanation of why Donald Trump does not represent the conservative or Tea Party movements. He wasn’t there when we needed him, and he helped those who were against us.

That was at a time Trump was considering running for President in the 2012 cycle. I made the point then, as I do now, that Trump is not a conservative or a smaller-government individual liberty person. He’s a big government nationalist.

My point with any big government person, be it Trump, Obama or Hillary, is that once you give them the power, it’s hard to get it back and you lose control over your own lives. You end up putting your faith that they will not abuse that power. If that’s what you want, so be it.

Levin points out many things about Trump that show he is no conservative, but a few of the glaring ones are the fact that he support Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio twice, as well as calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush, accusing him of lying to get us in the war. Oh yeah, and he supported Universal Health Care in America, the Canadian style.

And there’s more. This is a must listen.

TRS kindly provided the audio clip, which I’ve uploaded to YouTube.

Listen, carefully. It’s not anything you haven’t heard recently, but keep in mind this was contemporaneous criticism 5 years ago.

Cruz’s campaign chief is an ex CIA officer and like Curz himself is very big on lies and disinformation in all forms of media.

#neverTrump is just a phonied up variation of the Trump won’t win in general so vote for Cruz in primary lies and bullshit.

Just like the lies the cooked up against Ben Carson in Iowa. Lies and disinformation that is what Cruz knows best. Look at how well he tries to pretend to be an actual evangelical instead of an end times cultist who doesn’t tithe.

Time for a cup check there, bud. Criticism of your demigod has only just begun. His new Republican colleagues are still playing rather nicely given the volume of Trump baggage yet to be mined. What’s left of the Clinton machine hasn’t even turned their attention to him yet, but they will. Before long you’ll be looking back at today as being the good old days.

Clinton doesn’t have any machine that Trump isn’t already familiar with, and Trump has no meaningful baggage at all compared with Clinton’s life-long steady violation of ethics and fiduciary obligations when she wasn’t being just plain old incompetent.

Clinton blathers meaningless platitutes and panderings. I can hardly wait until she is asked in a debate and in the media for her “specifics”.

Hillary is an incompetent, unpatriotic, criminal. She has never done anything at all productive in her entire life. If you think, given the choice of Trump or Hillary that it makes no difference, that just strikes me as delusional.

I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values…

Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision… George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East [crony capitalism]…Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act… the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous…

I do not care that Donald Trump is in favor of big government. That is certainly not a virtue but it is not a meaningful vice since the same can be said of every single Republican in the race. I am sorry but the “we are just one more Republican victory from small government” card is maxed out. We are not getting small government no matter who wins…

Trump offers at least the chance that he might act in the American interest instead of the world’s interest or in the blind pursuit of some fantasy ideological goals. There is more to economic policy than cutting taxes, sham free trade agreements, and hollow appeals to “cutting government” and the free market. Trump may not be good, but he at least understands that…

[A]s much as I like Cruz on many areas he, like all of them except Trump, seems totally unwilling to admit that the government has a responsibility to act in the nation’s interests on trade policy and do something besides let every country in the world take advantage of us in the name of “free trade.”…

“If you think, given the choice of Trump or Hillary that it makes no difference, that just strikes me as delusional.”

And that’s why nobody has EVER made that argument.

But BOTH are stinking, lying Collectivist frauds. They vary widely in their views, like Stalin and Hitler. But at their base, they are BOTH Collectivists who LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT and have NO understanding of or allegiance to the Constitution or individual liberty.

You don’t have to voice the argument. Insisting that you will never vote for Trump is the same thing. Moreover, it’s certainly not a way to warm the hearts of those who are supporting Trump because they can’t have Carson and recognize that Cruz will result in another Obama term.

There is a reason Jeff Sessions endorsed Trump. There is a reason that Newt Gingrich is working with him. And there is a reason that those of us who actually know that man are getting more and more disturbed by the vile speculative and unprecedented carryings on anti-Trump.

Where were these carryings-on against the Bushes? Romney? Etc.

The abuse this man is taking because he stepped forward in frustration to address and fix crucial issues that no one else was close to even talking about is disgusting.

Let Trump come in and do his work and then move to hone the rest. Because if we don’t have a country, you can kiss goodbye all the rest.

My priorities…as often stated…are the Republic, the Constitution that charters it, individual liberty, and REDUCING government at all levels.

Those are things INIMICAL to Collectivists T-rump and Clinton.

When you have a DEMONSTRATED narcissist, liar, fraud, and crony capitalist, YOU are delusional to believe ANYTHING that person PRETENDS to believe or PROMISES to do. ESPECIALLY if you IMAGINE he’s being “selfless”.

I have listened to Ted Cruz lie over and over again about Trump and other things.

The KKK crap, for example. What he did to Carson in Iowa. His failure to disclose his sweetheart campaign loans, as another.

There are many others, but given that I’ve said at least a half-dozen times here alone that Cruz would have been my choice if I thought he could win and, especially, before Trump entered the race, I’m really not into doing a tit-for-tat.

How can anyone take Ragspierre seriously about anything when he argues here everyday that he would rather have Hillary Clinton pick the next 3 or 4 supreme court justices than Donal Trump who has promised to pick judges like Scalia, Thomas, Sykes and Pryor.

Hillary will pick judges like Obama, Holder, and Lynch, and that is just fine with Rags.

Rags = NOT SERIOUS PERSON or maybe he is just a LIAR and he’s an active part of the CIA inspired Cruz disinformation campaign.

This, apparently, is your example of not name-calling, not mocking Trump’s supporters, and being objective. (Of course, it’s not close to the Jennifer girl whose intellect has led her to write something along the lines of that I must be having homoerotic fantasies and similar.

Your conclusion does not have to be objective, but your reasoning does. Name-calling any kind of convincing argument. We can all have our own opinions, but not our own facts.

I have so had it with LI and the traffic trolling anti-Trump. I am only venturing back into this sewer of irrational invective because I fear that casual readers who don’t realize that LI community members have lost so much credibility will read some of the posts of late and become misled. I truly hate adding to the traffic, and I am looking forward to the time, hopefully, not too long from now, when Cruz is out. At least then, if LI goes full-bore pro-Hillary (so indirectly and cleverly) at least it will be obvious.

No I don’t remember. But I do clearly recall four years ago the professor coming into a comment thread to remind me, when I said something along the lines of will never vote for Romney, that that would be the equivalent of a vote for Obama.

I also clearly recall the professor considering Loretta Lynch and then deciding that she would be fine.

Charlie Rose asked Graham, “So there is no way, you’re seem to be suggesting, at the convention or before the convention to stop Donald Trump from being the nominee?”

He replied, “Short of a major scandal, probably not. And if Marco doesn’t win Florida, I don’t know how he goes forward. If Kasich loses Ohio… you know, Ted Cruz is not my favorite by any means. I don’t wish him ill. I was making a joke about Ted, but we may be in a position where we have to rally around Ted Cruz as the only way to stop Donald Trump, and I’m not so sure that would work.”

Rose followed up. “But you would recommend that in order to stop Donald Trump and rally behind Cruz?”

You just deflect. I think it would be interesting to run a calculation of the NET jobs that Donald Ducks has “created” versus how many he’s destroyed, and how many would have just been part of a market player filling a demand.

Because, really, T-rump isn’t a creator or innovator, but an exploiter. He never created anything that wasn’t in existence or was novel. He just did the equal of opening another grocery store. And has failed at a lot of that…

Since we’re speculating about Trump based on LSM misleading by omission, let’s speculate about how successful Cruz would be in running a business or making decisions as an executive, based on all the legislation he’s succeeded in getting through Congress.

Since we’re speculating about Trump based on LSM misleading by omission, let’s speculate about how successful Cruz would be in running a business or making decisions as an executive, based on all the legislation he’s succeeded in getting through Congress.

…OR let’s use his history as one of the great appellate lawyers in America, who has several times defended the Constitution SUCCESSFULLY.

That’s a staff line position. Yes, absolutely would Ted Cruz make a superb Supreme Court Justice, prosecutor, or policy advisor. Different skills from running a business or making executive decisions.

Rags, you keep saying that Trump wants to “command” the U.S. economy. Please explain what you mean by this, and also how you know what Trump “wants” in his mind so much better than people who actually know him.

Look up “command economy”. It has a definition, and I use it correctly.

Look up Der Donald’s comments on Ford Motor Company.

Look up his comments on the oil, pharma, defense, and insurance industries.

There’s really no difference between T-rump and Sanders. They both think that a POTUS can tell you what you may do with your property, the prices you may charge, and who you elect to deal with as a free person.

One is a quasi-socialist (he won’t nationalize anything), the other a fascist. Look up the definition of “fascist economics”.

“Commander in Bankruptcy”? This website is run by a lawyer; can we please have some clarity on Trump’s bankruptcies.

As a LAWYER, I tell you, the business entities system we have established in Western Civilization, is created so that individuals may own CORPORATIONS or other entities, without having PERSONAL LIABILITY if the business is unsuccessful, and those dealing with such entities make a business decision (business calculation) as to whether to deal with such entities with ONLY corporate liability or to INSIST on personal liability as well.

If anyone lost money on a Trump business bankruptcy, they knew in advance, if they cared to know, that he was not putting his own assets on the line.

CloseTheFed, I understand something about business law. I was a partner in a Chapter S corporation for many years. During that time, we issued bonds. During that time, I made sure that we did not go belly up and screw our creditors and my good name. That last part is called ethics.

I understand that corporation law limits liability and exposure.

But, I don’t understand your HUBRIS, LAWYER. Why should anyone be screwed over because they can be? But then again you and others are pushing the “highly ethical” (casino man, mob tied?) Trump to be CEO of America and to play fast and loose with America’s moral and financial probity.

Trump helped those opposing the Tea Party? You mean like the GOP Establishment? Which hates “trash voters” “muppets” “coo coo birds” “Kooks” & “Hobbits” even more than their Democrat chums across the aisle?

This meme has already been quashed months ago.

Rubio has no path forward with Trump and Cruz towering over him. Give it up Marco…

I don’t know if you are widely read or not but do you not remember the KY election where Matt Bevin, the TEA party candidate was defeated by McConnell? Trump gave $50,000 to McConnell in that primary to defeat a TEA party and conservative candidate. Matt Bevin later went on to win the governor’s seat in spite of Trump of McConnell. Sometimes it pays to Google a subject before you insert your foot into your mouth!

Trump gave money to pretty much whoever came to him and begged for it.

He admits that. He admits that he did it so that he could have a voice when policies on the table might affect one of his business interests.

He’s also said quite clearly that he entered this race because he became disgusted with this system which years of attempting to influence through other means just didn’t work. He entered this race out of high concern for the economic state and security of this country, and after so many years of watching the politicians lie and do nothing, notwithstanding his attempts to influence from the outside.

He entered this race because he is a patriot who cares about the future for his children and grandchildren.

“Poorly educated”… An example of smearing via false insinuation about Trump. Also a logical fallacy.

If you trying to insinuate something about me as a Trump supporter, well I have 3 post-graduate degrees, and my pro-Trump clan includes 3 doctorates from Cornell, 6 other Cornellians (including a valedictorian), and 7 top-of-their class graduates of MIT, Wharton, Brown, West Point and Annapolis.

You didn’t respond to my original point. Is it because you yourself, being so well educated, understand and can read between the lines?

You didn’t make a point. Every single one of us has the right to contact and lobby our legislators. The reality is that unless you are a big campaign contributor, they pretty much ignore you (if you can even get past the aide and the circular file.)

Trump has explained quite clearly that he did what most all of us would to get the equivalent of an audience when he had something to say.

He also has explained that he got fed up with this system, and how the candidates are literally controlled by their big donors, and is running to do something about it.

If not Trump, then who else. Even Cruz is beholden to his contributors.

What is “stupid” is to be so rabidly supportive of a man who cannot win that you trash the only one who can — along with his own chances (which he may now have blown) of using that winner as a means to continue climbing up into a position in which he could prevail.

Now we’re getting defensive about ‘selectively quoting’. Not to mention he was wrong about winning “46%” of hispanics in that same quote. Credit to you guys. Y’all have taken that 1990’s Clinton media playbook and are just running fly patterns all day.

So what you’re essentially saying is Trump will do away with Citizens United? LOL. Feel that Trump burn Wall St.!

No, like donating to Harry Reid over TEA Party candidate Sharon Angle, like multiple similar donations to progressive democrats who are, in actuality, worse than the GOPe. Trump was working against the TEA Party with both the progressive democrats and the GOPe. But hey, that doesn’t matter now because the only record that matters is anyone’s but Trump’s. Or something.

What on earth makes you think that Trump is anti-establishment? He brags that he was happily ensconced with the establishment mere months ago. He states, “I was the establishment” with the same swagger he uses when he brags about his penis size during presidential debates. That he claims he is not establishment now is merely a measure of the pandering he engages in to enable his candidacy, a pandering he pushed Romney to do in 2011-12 (with regards to Trump’s then-favored but ultimately failed red meat strategy to rally base support, Obama birtherism). I’m stunned that people buy this crap, truly stunned.

You can bet that if elected he will be making deals not only with the GOPe but deals that will make the GOPe look like conservative stalwarts guarding American freedom, and he’ll be making them with the most vile progressive democrats around (we know this not only because he is one but because he has said that he’ll “make great deals”–that his fans think this means anything other than “great” for Trump or in light of his limited understanding of the American republic and her Constitutional foundation is puzzling.).

America is not a corporation, and Trump has repeatedly indicated, as do his fans, that it should be “run” like one. America does not need to be “run” by anyone, not a CEO, not a wannabe king who dreams of his “reign,” and certainly not by a man who is presenting himself as something he not and has never been.

First, Levin notes all of the democrat people who Trump gave money to, but ignores all of the Republican people Trump gave money to, including a lot of tea party people. Ignoring half the story is being dishonest. Today, Trump admits that he gave money to everybody.

I regret supporting Rubio over Charlie Crist. Crist is a one in a million retail level politician. Nobody shakes hands and kisses babies better than him. He just doesn’t have a soul. But, I assume a Republican Crist would have acted in the Senate like George Lemieux (Crist’s campaign chief who was appointed by Crist and served in the Senate for 2 years and was ok).

Rubio was a disaster for Florida. He lied to his supporters. Rubio ducks votes all the time and is famous for his amnesty bill.

Rotten, you talk about soul. Do you have any idea who Trump is or what he stands for? The only soul he knows about is the kind that is on the bottom of his shoe, (Sole). I will admit he is a better choice than hillary. Not because I trust him to be more conservative but because I simply do not know what he will do and we all know what hillary will do. It boils down to a known disaster or a coin toss on a possible disaster.

And so all the previous LI icons from Jeff Sessions to Newt Gingrich to Sarah Palin et al. are all wrong.

Cruz cannot win. One reason he cannot win is illustrated by the vicious, unrelenting lies and attacks coming from the purist (yes, Mark Levin, I will use that adjective) conservative movement here. Nasty, intolerant, self-righteous, unwilling to bend even a little — and terrifying to northeast moderate Republicans and independents, as well as liberals. Ted Cruz’s supporters keep proving that they are not the sort of people who the majority of people in this country ever want to be in control.

That would be Ted Cruz of Princeton, Harvard, GWBush staff, federal bureaucracy employee, wife Heidi and National Security Council, Goldman Sachs and Citibank, and TPP supporter ID — and who is without experience in economic or military matters, who repeatedly takes minutiae and exaggerates it into lies about Donald Trump, and whose own interpretation of the U.S. Constitution would make him ineligible to run for president.

Wow! Your comment is a good example of extreme hyperbole. You throw things with no support and do not realize that your own candidate has more of a liability than the person you are promoting. You mention that Cruz has no economic or military experience. Do you suppose Trump has ever been in the military? Do you suppose Cruz has ever been bankrupt 4, FOUR, IV times? Cruz never bends? Is that your new criteria for a candidate? Trump is a human pretzel for God’s sake! He bends every thing he touches and says. Now he is bending what he said on immigration and “The Wall”. He is bending what he said on Planned Parenthood and obamacare. I do not begrudge you your choice of candidate but at least try to keep your pros for him and the cons for his opponents truthful.

You mention that Cruz has no economic or military experience. Do you suppose Trump has ever been in the military?

Well then we’d have a wash, wouldn’t we if Cruz had at least gone to a patriotic military high school and Wharton instead of Princeton and Harvard.

Do you suppose Cruz has ever been bankrupt 4, FOUR, IV times?

Donald Trump himself has never been bankrupt. Four of hundreds of companies and entrepreneurial ventures. Cruz, of course, has never owned even one business, successful or otherwise.

Cruz never bends? Is that your new criteria for a candidate?

I was referring to, not the candidates, but the supporters. Perfection is not possible. And Cruz can’t win. So the anti-Trumpers are not succeeding in furthering Cruz but essentially demanding that if they can’t have everything they want, then f’it, just blow all of it.

Ted Cruz’s supporters keep proving that they are not the sort of people who the majority of people in this country ever want to be in control.

This may be true. But I don’t usually blame a candidate for the low quality of his fanboys.

But in this election, the more I see of Cruz himself— as opposed to his minions and sycohants—the more underwhelmed I become. The guy’s something of a sleaze, and every day he gets sleazier. I can’t wait for the next batch of primaries.

My point with any big government person, be it Trump, Obama or Hillary, is that once you give them the power, it’s hard to get it back and you lose control over your own lives. You end up putting your faith that they will not abuse that power.

It’s bigger than that.

You not only put faith that that person will not abuse that power, you’re putting faith that their successors — whose identities and ideologies you have no way of knowing — will also not abuse that power.

Some of us might approve Ted Cruz (for example) having additional statutory powers. But suppose Hillary Clinton is eventually elected as his successor. Would you approve her having them?

If not, then Cruz shouldn’t have them, either.

I cannot state that strongly enough, but the point is lost on far too many voters.

If your slimy innuendo held anything like truth, you should be able to link to other uses and users of my word-play. They’d be used all over the interwebs.

But you can’t, just like you can’t use words correctly when you become hysterical. Like the other night.

Or like you can’t use numbers truthfully, as in “40% of Republicans”, because there are not 40% of Republicans who are Donald Ducks supporters, and certainly not who would be “insulted” by my reasoned opposition to the stinking, lying Collectivist thug.

Since Trump is the only anti establishment candidate and Cruz is and has been part of the Bush neocon open borders amnesty establishment fo 20 years it is hardly surprising that some establishment types would endorse him over Trump. Even Lindsey Graham has endorsed Cruz.

Publicly, the campaign is maintaining they are still a contender in this race, touting a Sunday win in Puerto Rico’s primary that delivered Rubio 23 delegates. But privately, the campaign is having a debate about whether he should remain in the mix — even for his home state of Florida’s primary.

“He doesn’t want to get killed in his home state,” one source familiar with the discussions said, noting “a poor showing would be a risk and hurt his political future.”

Alex Conant, Rubio’s communication director, said the report of such an internal debate is “100% false.”

Most of his advisers agree he does not have a path to the nomination and some are advising him to get out ahead of the March 15 primary.

Sources within the campaign also say the pressure will only continue to mount following an expected disappointing showing Tuesday, when voters in Michigan, Mississippi, Hawaii and Idaho make their picks in the GOP primary.

“Not going to have a great day is an understatement,” one campaign source said.

What is the point of bolding your entire comment? It looks like you’re about half a step away from Gary’s ALLCAPS MELTDOWN the other day. Maybe the two of you can pool your formatting skillz and we can have an ALLBOLD ALLCAPS SHOUTATHON FOR TRUMP!

1. the early vote sample size is tiny, <80 IIRC
2. it polls only those who voted in the last two r primaries or the last 2 elections, leaving out completely those who have been fed up to the point of not voting, but will this time.

So Dr. Carson shows his political astuteness on the qualities of other candidates to be equal to that shown in choosing himself as an informed and electable choice – which is to say, not at all.

Perhaps Carson is holding a grudge, or perhaps he cannot bring himself to admit that Cruz, whose views are closest to Carson, has carried the religiously inclined vote far better than Carson. Whatever the source of Carson’s ignorance, anyone familiar with polls and analytics knows better.

For example, on March 3rd Polit Fact published the average of RCP averages in head to head matchups with Hillary:

“In the scenario that appears most likely to emerge from the primary contests, Clinton tops Trump 52% to 44% among registered voters. That result has tilted in Clinton’s favor since the last CNN/ORC Poll on the match-up in January.

But when the former secretary of state faces off with either of the other two top Republicans, things are much tighter and roughly the same as they were in January. Clinton trails against Rubio, with 50% choosing the Florida senator compared to 47% for Clinton, identical to the results in January. Against Cruz, Clinton holds 48% to his 49%, a slight tightening from a 3-point race in January to a 1-point match-up now.”

In other words, while Rubio and Cruz can beat Hillary, Trump is crushed by an 8 point gap (and he even loses to Sanders).

So please tell us again why we should join in drinking the stupid juice?

The polls you cite are completely meaningless. At the same point and later compared to current election cycle. Jimmy Carter led Reagan by 20 points and Dukakis led Bush by double digits.

Idiots supporting other candidates to Reagan said just like you “but Reagan can’t win”, “Reagan is hitler”, “Reagan will get us into world war 3 and should never have nuclear codes”, “Reagan is racist”. Blah blah blah.

Every democrat analyst I see on CNN, FOX and MSNBC when asked who will be hardest for Hillary to beat ALL SAY TRUMP !!! Because he his hardest to campaign against, can’t be portrayed as an extremist like Cruz, AND HAS CROSS OVER APPEAL WITH UNION MEMBERS AND REAGAN DEMOCRATS.

None of the polls take into account in their modeling Trump’s crossover appeal and how he puts various states in play no other GOP candidate can put into play, like Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania.

Naturally you hand-wave that the polls are meaningless. However, your hope for Trump is not based on real evidence, and cherry picking a false comparison won’t convince.

A contest between Trump and Hillary is nothing like that of between Dukakis (a largely unknown NE politician) nor a Bush (who had the Reagan popular legacy and very low “unfavorable” rating).

And actually both candidates held substantial leads. Bush substantially led Dukakis in March; in May Dukakis led Bush by similiar margins; in September Bush regained his prior substantial lead and won. Why? Because Dukakis’s was an unknown whose bandwagon effect expired when Lee Atwater successfully defined and portrayed Dukakis as a soft on crime liberal dweeb, while Bush promised no new taxes.

But 1988 is not 2016. This a highly polarized electorate and Trump and Hillary are two VERY WELL KNOWN candidates – both with very high unfavorables (up to 68 percent). Far fewer see themselves potentially as voting for the other guy and you don’t expect to see wild swings in poll numbers of prior eras because the undecided and independent voter is no longer critical for Democratic victory.

And in this case they tell us that unlike Dukakis v. Bush, Hillary has almost constantly dominated Trump, often by substantial poll numbers of 8 points. Unlike B v. D, its been a mainly one-side seesaw.

finally the issue is not whether it is possible for Trump to win, the issue is who has the best chance of winning.

Since campaign season began Trump has been poorest in polling on head to head matchups…even on the rare occasion he barely edged out Hillary. There is no reason to expect that to change unless Trump undergoes a brain (or personality) transplant.

…

FYI – Trump is no Reagan, in either personality, warmth, humor, appeal, vision or generosity of spirit. If he were, we wouldn’t need this discussion. In 1980 the gipper was broadly liked in the GOP, and never engendered fractured backlash. Party unity was never a serious problem.

—

You say that every democrat analyst you see says Trump is hardest to beat, to campaign against, because “he can’t be portrayed as an extremist like Cruz, AND HAS CROSS OVER APPEAL WITH UNION MEMBERS AND REAGAN DEMOCRATS.”

He is also hardest to campaign FOR, because of his stratospheric
disapproval ratings. Trump, like Hillary, tends to be stuck in a narrow range because they are already defined as scumbags for a large portion of the population.

Moreover, there is no evidence of a ‘cross-over’ that somehow fails to show up in the polls of registered voters of both parties. That’s just more wishful thinking – unsupported speculation trotted out as “Trump Facts”.

As I stated earlier, polling continues to show Rubio, Cruz, Carson, and Trump (in that order) as most likely to acceptable to voters.

PS Trump is not an extremist? Oh yes, his stances on immigration, torture, and trade are 100 percent moderate. (rolling eyes time).

Except Rags you liar it is what really happened on Hannity’s Radio show. When asked to choose between Trump and Cruz Dr. Carson said he would chose Trump because his crossover appeal makes him more electable.

Trump has a lot of crossover appeal … especially those who crossover the Pacific Ocean.

Do you know what Donald J Trump has in common with Terry McAuliffe, Tony Rodham, and Hillary Clinton?

Yep, they all use the EB-5 to raise money for their projects. This is not only very sleazy and corrupt, but quite hypocritical. Trump will build a wall to keep the Mexicans out but if they invest in one of Trump’s buildings, they too can get a legal EB-5 visa and stay here for 2 years.

Tea Party-supported and ostensibly “representing” Marco Rubio rented out the Tampa Convention Center for a rally yesterday (seating for 5000) — and 300 people showed up.

2016 is not 2012.

Time for Mark Levin to pack it in because Cruz cannot win. As far as Trump’s positions, he has called for supportive lawyers (lawyers only) to send his campaign researched position papers on their issues (with cites). So instead of screeching anti-Trump, perhaps a different approach would be more appropriate. Trump is educable, and he listens and takes advice.

Godforbid a candidate listen to anyone else or keep an open mind. Godforbid the general public ever recognize that individual candidates don’t know everything, and that most of them just consult their big donors and handlers to parrot the their positions.

Why is this ok, yet we were all browbeaten in the last election cycle to vote for Mitt and called all kinds of unsavory names and our loyalty questioned if we did not do as told? I for one will decide on my own who I vote for. If the establishment brings to bear its dirty tricks to impose a candidate in a brokered convention, I will leave the party. It’s just my voice and vote, but I will not be part and parcel to illegality and behind the scenes machinations by those who think they are our betters. What gives the establishment the right to toss out the votes of all the people who have taken the time to vote in primaries and to decide that their voice is not worth the paper it is written on? NO ONE decides for me.

A brokered convention is not “illegal.” If no one receives 1/2 +1 of the delegates before the convention, then they haven’t earned the nomination. I agree that it wouldn’t be a good look for them to then select a minority candidate rather than going with whoever did get the most delegates (even if they didn’t get 50%+1), but it wouldn’t be illegal.

No, but all the machinations to bring one about are……. any way you cut it, the establishment is pulling out all its dirty tricks to impose their candidate….. that in my book is tantamount to being illegal. That’s what I take exception too. We were all told to sit back and take our medicine and vote for Mitt by the same people who are now going behind our backs to impose whoever it is they feel is correct.. They sure were right in 2012, weren’t they, starting with Carl Rove. What the hell has happened to the will of the people. Do things fairly and above board and you have my support…. otherwise, bug off!

that’s just my way of saying I’m sick and tired of others telling me what to think, when to think it and what to do with what I think… Right now I’m ready to tell them where they can put their advice! 🙂 Yes, words have meaning — I shouldn’t have used illegal but rather hypocritical or some such other word, but you get my drift. I hate being told what to do and what not to do and detest unfairness. If what the people want is Trump or Cruz or Rubio or the dog next door it’s there decision!

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for president less than a day before the Hospitality State’s Republican primary begins.

“It’s time for Republicans to join together and unite the party for the good of our state and our nation,” Bryant said Monday evening. “I urge my fellow Mississippians to join me in standing behind Ted Cruz tomorrow.”

National Review Online, which sort of lost me after their Newt-bashing frenzy last election cycle anyway, really messed up yesterday. They announced the Cruz campaign was set to unveil four or more endorsements from Cruz’s fellow senators, and of course lots of other blogs picked that up and ran with it.

Given that NRO is almost as anti-Cruz as it is anti-Trump, I can’t help but wonder what was up with that. I don’t think anyone who’s anti-GOPe, whether they’re pro-Trump or pro-Cruz, should trust anything coming out of that rag.

I like some of the authors they have in their stable, but the magazine/organization as a whole, I don’t trust. They as an organization have their own agendas (such as the extreme pro-Mitt anti-Newt agenda in 2012), and just because I agree with some of their anti-Trump arguments this time around doesn’t mean I’m going to let my guard down. I know full well that if they somehow managed to knock Trump out, it would be Cruz in their their firing line.